Read Time: 08 minutes

Recently in a rape case, the Madhya Pradesh High Court rejected the bail application and noted that, India is a conservative society, it has not yet reached such level (advance or lower) of civilization where unmarried girls, regardless of their religion, indulge in carnal activities with boys “just for the fun of it”, unless the same is backed by some future promise/assurance of marriage.

The Single Bench of Justice Subodh Abhyankar observed that,

“The court did not find it a fit case for grant of bail as apparently the applicant has allured the prosecutrix to enter into a physical relationship on the pretext of marriage despite knowing fully well that both of them are from different religion.”

In the present case, the applicant was implicated in connection with Crime for offence punishable under Sections 376, 376(2) (N), 366 of the I.P.C. and under sections 3, 4, 5 (I), 6 of the Prevention of Children from Sexual Act. He has been in jail since 04.06.2021.

The allegation against the applicant was that he committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage.

The Counsel for the applicant has submitted that,the applicant and the prosecutrix had an affair since last around two years and both of them are students.

It was further submitted that the, “prosecutrix entered into physical relationship with the applicant on her own free will as she is aged around 21 years and has falsely stated that the incident has taken place around three years ago only under the pressure of prosecutrix' family members.”

The Counsel further contented that, “the parents of the prosecutrix and the applicant were opposed to their marriage as both of them are from different religion as the applicant is a Hindu whereas the prosecutrix is a Muslim. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the applicant has committed rape on the prosecutrix.”

On the contrary the counsel for the State, opposed the prayer and submitted that,

“no case for grant of bail is made out as the applicant has repeatedly committed rape on the prosecutrix on the pretext of marriage since October 2018 and subsequently he refused to marry her and informed her on 1.6.2021 at around 12 o'clock in the night that his marriage is fixed to some other place and hence he cannot marry her.’

He also informed the Court that, subsequently the prosecutrix tried to commit suicide by consuming phenyl and this fact has been disclosed in her dying declaration dated 2.6.2021 but fortunately she survived.

Taking into account the factual matrix of the present case the Bench made some significant observations –

• In majority of the cases of rape, the defence of the accused is that the prosecutrix was a consenting party and in most of the cases the accused gets the benefit of doubt also.
• To prove her point, it is not necessary every time for a victim to try to commit suicide as in the present case.
• A boy who is entering into a physical relationship with a lass must realize that his actions have consequences and should be ready to face the same as it is the girl who is always at the receiving end because it is she who runs the risk of being pregnant and also her ignominy in the society, if her relationship is disclosed.

Therefore, dismissing the bail plea the bench observed that,

“The prosecutrix has tried to commit suicide which apparently shows that she was serious about the relationship and it cannot be said that she entered into the relationship only for enjoyment. In such circumstances, this Court is not inclined to allow the present bail application.”

[Case Title - Abhishek Chouhan vs. State of Madhya Pradesh]